{"id":57726,"date":"2007-12-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007"},"modified":"2014-06-15T06:43:38","modified_gmt":"2014-06-15T01:13:38","slug":"thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"Thomas vs George on 6 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Thomas vs George on 6 December, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 929 of 1994()\n\n\n\n1. THOMAS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. GEORGE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.JAYACHANDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :06\/12\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n              ------------------------------------------\n                  S.A .NO. 929 OF 1994\n              ------------------------------------------\n\n              Dated        6th December 2007\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
         Plaintiff in         O.S.201\/ 1988 on the file of<\/p>\n
Munsiff  court,     Muvattupuzha             is       the  appellant.<\/p>\n
Defendant is the respondent.            Appellant instituted the<\/p>\n
suit seeking a decree for recovery of possession on<\/p>\n
the strength of title.          Appellant and respondent are<\/p>\n
brothers.   Appellant is the elder brother. Plaint<\/p>\n
schedule properties are three items of properties<\/p>\n
which originally admittedly belonged to the father of<\/p>\n
appellant and respondent.           It was admittedly divided<\/p>\n
under Ext.A1 partition deed dated 12\/1\/1977. Under the<\/p>\n
said partition deed A schedule properties therein were<\/p>\n
allotted to the share of appellant and                  B schedule to<\/p>\n
the share of  respondent. Appellant claimed                  title to<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property contending that they are<\/p>\n
properties allotted to him as item Nos.2 and 3 of<\/p>\n
plaint  A   schedule        property.          Adjoining     property<\/p>\n
allotted to the respondent is item No.2 of plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule  property.       Appellant          would      contend  that<\/p>\n
SA 929\/94
\n                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent trespassed into the plaint schedule property<\/p>\n
and reduced it into his unlawful possession and   he is<\/p>\n
entitled to   recover possession of the same with mesne<\/p>\n
profits on the strength      of the title.    Respondent<\/p>\n
resisted the suit   admitting Ext.A1 but contending that<\/p>\n
properties were    in the possession of the respective<\/p>\n
parties even before partition.    It was also contended<\/p>\n
that there was a mistake in the extent and        survey<\/p>\n
number in Ext.A1 partition deed and appellant attempted<\/p>\n
to trespass into the property   and respondent therefore<\/p>\n
instituted   O.S.135\/1986   and   just  prior   to   the<\/p>\n
institution of   that suit respondent came to know that<\/p>\n
he obtained 30 cents in R.S.No.68\/11A instead of 15<\/p>\n
cents    and  57  cents   instead  of  37   cents     in<\/p>\n
R.S.No.68\/11C    and   also   8   cents      in   survey<\/p>\n
No.184\/1\/31\/46   instead of 19 cents  shown in partition<\/p>\n
deed and   appellant is not entitled to the recovery of<\/p>\n
possession of the said property as he has no title to<\/p>\n
the property.\n<\/p>\n
       2.  Learned Munsiff on the evidence of PW1, Dws.1<\/p>\n
and 2 and Exts.A1 to A6, B1 to B3 and C1 and C1(a)<\/p>\n
found that under Ext.A1 partition deed appellant has<\/p>\n
title    to plaint  A  schedule  property    and  plaint<\/p>\n
SA 929\/94
\n                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
schedule properties are the properties allotted under<\/p>\n
A schedule of Ext.A1 and it does not form part of      B<\/p>\n
schedule property allotted to respondent under Ext.A1<\/p>\n
and therefore     appellant is entitled to the   recovery<\/p>\n
of possession of the same on the      strength of title.<\/p>\n
Learned     Munsiff  also  found  that  properties   were<\/p>\n
correctly demarcated in Ext.C1(a) plan and appellant is<\/p>\n
also entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.120\/-<\/p>\n
per     month  till realisation.  Suit  was  decreed  and<\/p>\n
appellant was allowed recovery of possession of plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property. It was also provided that respondent<\/p>\n
is entitled to the value of improvements which is to be<\/p>\n
fixed at     execution  proceedings.  Respondent did not<\/p>\n
file an appeal. Appellant filed A.S.12\/1992   before the<\/p>\n
Sub court, Muvattupuzha challenging the portion of the<\/p>\n
decree granting value of    improvements, to be fixed at<\/p>\n
the execution stage contending that    being a trespasser<\/p>\n
appellant is not entitled to the value of improvements.<\/p>\n
In   the    appeal respondent  filed  a  cross  objection<\/p>\n
contending that trial court should have found that<\/p>\n
respondent is not a trespasser       and he has been in<\/p>\n
possession of the property from the date of Ext.A1<\/p>\n
partition deed and appellant is not entitled to the<\/p>\n
SA 929\/94
\n                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
decree for recovery of possession sought for.   Learned<\/p>\n
Sub Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the<\/p>\n
findings of learned Munsiff   that appellant has title<\/p>\n
to the plaint schedule properties under Ext.A1.  But it<\/p>\n
was found that as item No.1, appellant was allotted<\/p>\n
only 15 cents in survey No.68\/11B and as item No.2,  20<\/p>\n
cents on eastern  side of 57 cents comprised in survey<\/p>\n
No.68\/11C was also alloted to him and the remaining<\/p>\n
extent in that survey number, being the eastern part,<\/p>\n
was alloted to the respondent  under B schedule and as<\/p>\n
item No.3 only 15 cents in R.S.No.68\/11A was allotted<\/p>\n
to the appellant and those plots are plots 3,4 and 9<\/p>\n
marked in Ext.C1(a) plan. Learned Sub Judge  found that<\/p>\n
appellant is only entitled to recovery of possession of<\/p>\n
the item No.3,4 and 9  and not the  remaining 15 cents<\/p>\n
in survey No.68\/11 A. Finding that      respondent has<\/p>\n
planted 37 rubber trees bonafide, it was held that<\/p>\n
appellant is entitled to the value of improvements of<\/p>\n
only those 37 rubber trees.  Decree was   modified with<\/p>\n
regard to   value of improvements restricting it to 37<\/p>\n
rubber trees. Recovery of possession was also modified<\/p>\n
to plots 3,4 and 9.      Appellant is challenging the<\/p>\n
judgment in the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
SA 929\/94
\n                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
       3.    Appeal was admitted formulating following<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
              1)   Whether    first   appellate
\n          court was justified in varying the
\n          decree granted by trial court when
\n          respondent  did  not  raise  specific
\n          grounds in the cross objection with
\n          regard to possession of 30 cents in
\n          R.S.No.68\/11A.\n<\/p>\n
              2)   Whether    first   appellate
\n          court was justified in restricting
\n          the  decree      to   15   cents   in
\n          R.S.No.68\/11A, when Ext.A1 partition
\n          deed shows that only appellant was
\n          alloted the property in R.S.No.68\/11A
\n          and respondent was not alloted any
\n          property in that survey number.\n<\/p>\n
       4.  Learned counsel appearing for appellant and<\/p>\n
respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
       5.  Though respondent raised a contention before<\/p>\n
the trial court, and it was re-agitated before the<\/p>\n
first    appellate  court  that  properties  which  were<\/p>\n
divided   under  Ext.A1  was   earlier  divided and  the<\/p>\n
respective   positions   of  the  parties  were  in  the<\/p>\n
possession of the sharers, it was not accepted by the<\/p>\n
trial court and appellate court. Being a      finding of<\/p>\n
fact, that question     cannot be   re-agitated  in the<\/p>\n
SA 929\/94
\n                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
second appeal. Fact that appellant was alloted the<\/p>\n
properties under schedule A and respondent          under<\/p>\n
schedule B is also undisputed.     Trial court and first<\/p>\n
appellate court found that appellant has title to the<\/p>\n
property allotted as schedule A under Ext.A1. Trial<\/p>\n
court found that plaint schedule properties are the<\/p>\n
properties allotted     to the appellant under Ext.A1 and<\/p>\n
he has title to the property. Learned Sub Judge on re-<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence also confirmed that finding.<\/p>\n
But learned Sub Judge modified the decree with respect<\/p>\n
to the eastern portion of R.S.No.68\/11A having an<\/p>\n
extent of 15 cents, though trial court found that<\/p>\n
appellant     has  title  to  the  entire   thirty  cents<\/p>\n
including the     said 15 cents also. Argument of learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for appellant is that when the title<\/p>\n
so found by the trial court, was not specifically<\/p>\n
challenged in the cross objection and no specific<\/p>\n
ground     was  taken  first  appellate  court   was  not<\/p>\n
justified in varying the decree and that too without a<\/p>\n
specific finding     for the modification. It was argued<\/p>\n
that first appellate court restricted the      relief to<\/p>\n
plot     No.4 alone which is the western 15 cents plot in<\/p>\n
R.S.No.68\/11 A, for the reason that commissioner has<\/p>\n
SA 929\/94
\n                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
found that respondent is in possession of that property<\/p>\n
and not for the reason that appellant has no title to<\/p>\n
the property. Learned counsel appearing for respondent<\/p>\n
argued that under Ext.A1    appellant was alloted only 15<\/p>\n
cents and that 15 cents is plot No.4 and appellant<\/p>\n
cannot     claim  title  to  the  eastern  15  cents  in<\/p>\n
R.S.68\/11A which is in the possession of respondent.<\/p>\n
and therefore finding of first appellate court        is<\/p>\n
correct.\n<\/p>\n
       6.   There is force in the submission of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for appellant that when the<\/p>\n
question of title with regard to the eastern half of<\/p>\n
R.S.No.68\/11A which is part of 30 cents for which title<\/p>\n
of the appellant was upheld by the trial court and when<\/p>\n
the     finding  was   not  specifically  challenged   by<\/p>\n
respondent,    first  appellate  court  should  not  have<\/p>\n
varied the said finding. Grounds taken      in the cross<\/p>\n
objection are as follows;\n<\/p>\n
              1. The lower court went wrong in
\n         finding   that  the   respondent  is    a
\n         trespasser and  as  such he   has to  be
\n         evicted   from   the   plaint    schedule
\n         properties.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2.   The lower court ought to have
\n         found that the respondent got possession<\/p>\n
SA 929\/94
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
         of plaint schedule properties on the date
\n         of partition deed and that the respondent
\n         is  legally entitled to be in possession
\n         of the properties as per the provision of
\n         the partition deed.\n<\/p>\n
             3.   The lower court ought to have
\n         found that the plaintiff was never in
\n         possession   of   the   plaint    schedule
\n         properties from the date of partition.<\/p>\n
Therefore in the light of the grounds taken in the<\/p>\n
cross     objection,  first   appellate   court  was  not<\/p>\n
justified    in   probing  the  title  of   the  appellant<\/p>\n
further, when it was already found in his favour by the<\/p>\n
trial court.\n<\/p>\n
       7.   Whatever  it  be,  the   question  is  whether<\/p>\n
appellant has title to the eastern 15 cents which was<\/p>\n
not granted by the first appellate court. It is not<\/p>\n
disputed that respondent was not allotted any property<\/p>\n
in R.S.No.68\/11 A. It is also true that as item No.2 of<\/p>\n
A schedule, only 15 cents in R.S.No.68.11 A was alloted<\/p>\n
along with other properties to the appellant. That 15<\/p>\n
cents is marked by the Commissioner as plot 4. But as<\/p>\n
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for appellant, description of item No.2 of A schedule<\/p>\n
in Ext.A1 shows that it is not only 15 cents but also<\/p>\n
SA 929\/94
\n                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
the surplus areas (“virivu”). If that be so, it cannot<\/p>\n
be said that as extent of R.S.No.68\/11 A shows only 15<\/p>\n
cents, appellant has no title to the remaining 15 cents<\/p>\n
of the property. When Ext.A1 shows that respondent was<\/p>\n
not allotted any property in R.S.No.68\/11 A and instead<\/p>\n
the entire property was allotted only to the appellant<\/p>\n
showing the extent of surplus land, it can only be<\/p>\n
found that   appellant has title to    said eastern 15<\/p>\n
cents also. It is more so, because the description of<\/p>\n
item No.2 of A schedule   of Ext.A1 shows that it is a<\/p>\n
continuous plot along with plots 3,4,9 and 10 as<\/p>\n
demarcated by the Commissioner. If that be so, even on<\/p>\n
merits first appellate court  was not at all  justified<\/p>\n
in restricting the decree to plot No.4 alone and not<\/p>\n
confirming the decree granted in respect of the eastern<\/p>\n
15 cents   of R.S.No.68\/11A. Therefore, to that extent<\/p>\n
appellant is entitled to succeed in the appeal. No<\/p>\n
other     question was argued in the appeal.     Though<\/p>\n
respondent had filed a cross objection,    it does not<\/p>\n
show any substantial question of law. No substantial<\/p>\n
question of law is also involved. Hence cross objection<\/p>\n
is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
       8.  In the result,   appeal is allowed. Judgment<\/p>\n
SA 929\/94
\n                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
in     O.S.201\/1988  on   the  file  of   Munsiff  court,<\/p>\n
Muvattupuzha    as modified in A.S.12\/1992 on the file of<\/p>\n
Sub     court,  Muvattupuzha  is  modified  holding  that<\/p>\n
appellant     is  also   entitled  to  get   recovery  of<\/p>\n
possession    of  eastern   15  cents  of  plot  No.4 in<\/p>\n
R.S.No.68\/11A as demarcated by the Commissioner. No<\/p>\n
cost.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                               JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nuj.\n<\/p>\n
SA 929\/94
\n             11<\/span><\/p>\n
             =============================
\n               M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n<\/p>\n
                 JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
              S.A.NO.929 OF 1994<\/p>\n
                 6th December  2007<\/p>\n
             ============================<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Thomas vs George on 6 December, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 929 of 1994() 1. THOMAS … Petitioner Vs 1. GEORGE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.JAYACHANDRAN For Respondent :SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :06\/12\/2007 O R D E R M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. —————————————— […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57726","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThomas vs George on 6 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thomas vs George on 6 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-15T01:13:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thomas vs George on 6 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-15T01:13:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1796,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007\",\"name\":\"Thomas vs George on 6 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-15T01:13:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thomas vs George on 6 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Thomas vs George on 6 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thomas vs George on 6 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-15T01:13:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thomas vs George on 6 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-15T01:13:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007"},"wordCount":1796,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007","name":"Thomas vs George on 6 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-15T01:13:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-vs-george-on-6-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thomas vs George on 6 December, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57726","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57726"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57726\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57726"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57726"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57726"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}